painhardcore Show me your work
For work a human reviews after the fact, a decision trail lets them reconstruct what was decided, why, and on what evidence, without rerunning the work or reading the whole transcript. Keep one canonical log so the trail is consistent and a future agent can find it.
The format
A single TSV file, one row per decision. TSV because GitHub renders it as a sortable table, column -s$'\t' -t and spreadsheets read it, and a row appends with one command. Cells stay single-line. Evidence is a pointer, not prose.
Copy references/decision-log-template.tsv (the header row) to start a clean log. Columns:
- ts. ISO8601 timestamp. The timeline axis.
- phase. The phase or workstream.
- decision. What was chosen or done, one line.
- why. The reason in plain words. If a principle drove it, say it plainly (
explored options first, this was a one-way door), not as a jargon tag. - evidence. A link or path that proves it: commit SHA, PR number,
file:line, or an artifact, trace, or screenshot path. Never a paragraph. - result. The outcome or predicate state:
tests green,reverted,pixel-diff 0,INCONCLUSIVE,open.
An example, plain-spoken so a reviewer reads it at a glance. This is illustration only; don't copy these rows into a real log.
ts phase decision why evidence result
2026-05-24T09:02:00Z frame counted the work first, about 100 components and roughly 75 hours wanted to know the size before starting a long run commit 3a9f1c2 found 5 things to sort out before starting
2026-05-24T09:40:00Z harness took screenshots of the old version before changing anything so we can compare old against new and catch any visual change baseline/ saved 120 reference screenshots
2026-05-24T11:15:00Z widget moved the widget styles over without changing how it looks keep the change small and the result identical commit 7c21e0a, pixel-diff 0 looks identical, tests pass
2026-05-24T12:30:00Z widget threw out a helper's work because its screenshots were blank checked the real files instead of trusting its summary worktree reset reverted, tightened the instructions for next time
Logging a row
Write each entry the way you'd tell a teammate what you did. Plain words, concrete actions, no AI speak or abstract jargon (the unslop skill applies to log text too). A reviewer should understand each row without decoding it.
Use the host's file-editing tool to append one TSV row. Keep every cell on one line. Prefix a cell that starts with =, +, -, or @ with a single quote so opening the log in a spreadsheet cannot execute it as a formula. Use an ISO 8601 timestamp.
Log decision points and checkpoints, not every action: a fork chosen, a unit completed with its verification result, a pivot or revert with its trigger, a blocker surfaced, a gate fixed. For loop runs, one row per iteration. Skip the trivial and self-evident.
Where it lives
By default the log is a working artifact, not committed. Keep it at decisions.tsv in the work dir, or .audit/<task-slug>.tsv when several efforts run at once, and leave it out of git. Most work doesn't need a committed trail; the local log still keeps the run honest and can be discarded after.
Commit it only when the work is ambitious enough that a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result: a large cross-language port, a multi-week migration, anything where confidence has to be shown rather than assumed. A committed log renders as a table in the PR.
Rules
- One row is one decision or checkpoint. If it doesn't fit on one line, the decision isn't crisp yet.
- Append-only. A wrong call gets a new row that supersedes it. Never edit or delete history.
- Prefer evidence produced by committed scripts over hand-made one-offs, so a reviewer can re-run it (the encode-lessons-in-structure principle skill).
Audit the log against the transcript
At the end of the run, check that the log told the truth. Use the current task history when the host exposes it. Otherwise compare the log with the task list, diff, command results, and produced artifacts. Never scan unrelated projects or private chats.
- Every row maps to a real action. Cut invented or aspirational entries.
- Each row's evidence resolves and shows what the row claims.
- A fork, pivot, or abandoned approach that shaped the work but isn't logged is a gap. Add it.
- Drop padding. If nobody would audit a row, it doesn't earn its place.
Fix the log, not the story. If the work diverged from what a row claims, the row is wrong.
Cross-model review of the trail
When subagents are available and permitted, ask a read-only reviewer on a different available model family to inspect the audit trail and the task history. If delegation or model selection is unavailable, run the same audit inline and state that limitation. This is not a redo of the work. It is a scan for evidence gaps and risky choices.
- Decisions logged with weak or absent evidence.
- Verification steps skipped or claimed without proof in the transcript.
- Choices that look risky in hindsight (premature, scope-creeping, papering over a symptom).
- Gaps the user would otherwise miss on a casual skim.
Every reply for a run that produced a trail ends with an "Attention" section. Name the reviewer model when a separate model was used. Otherwise say reviewed inline. List each flag with the relevant row or evidence path. No flags is a valid result.
Reviewing the trail
Read top to bottom, follow the evidence pointers, spot-check. GitHub renders a committed TSV as a table; column -s$'\t' -t decisions.tsv renders it in a terminal. A row whose evidence doesn't resolve, or whose result is unverified, is the audit catching a gap.
Composing this skill
Other skills route their audit trail here instead of inventing one. Reference it by name and let it own the format; don't restate the columns.